French Government Warns opponents on EU Treaty Delay

The upcoming French election poses a threat for Sarkozy's proposal to write a requirement to balance the state budget with a "golden-rule" ideal into France's constitution. A large majority agrees that the change in the constitution should be delayed due to the impending election. The call for national unity is the opposing party's reasoning for continuing with the changes. EU leaders have agreed that it is important to enact the new treaty, however there is much backlash that will occur if the changes proceed before the election. Without the support of the Socialist party there is a lack of a two-thirds party agreement. They have agreed that Sarkozy's plan is weak and should be postponed in hopes to not use it at all.

Elisabeth Guigou, the ex-European Minister, has openly voiced that she sees this push for legislation change as a "grotesque political trap". Although others agree with her opinion, the need for change should happen before the election if citizens truly wish to see this passed. After the election it is not certain that it will be seen through. Their push for this can be seen as a political move, but can also be viewed as an act to provide security within the economy.

The election is in May, thus, if the French citizens want this to pass, they need to move quickly.

http://news.yahoo.com/french-government-warns-opponents-eu-treaty-delay-231957535.html;_ylt=AgPGXnb8m_GC4cJ52eugoLqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNta29oZTk0BG1pdANUb3BTdG9yeSBGUARwa2cDOGI3MTEzYjYtZjE3MS0zM2ZiLWJhNmUtMDM4YzdkOGRiNjJiBHBvcwMxMgRzZWMDdG9wX3N0b3J5BHZlcgNkMjczNWI5MC0yNDRlLTExZTEtOWY3Ni1iOGEyZGI1NWRkMDA-;_ylg=X3oDMTFvdnRqYzJoBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3

Early last Friday, Israeli aircraft attracted the Gaza Strip in order to pre-emptive stop attacks as well as respond to a single RPG that harmed no one.  This over aggressive tendency of Israel is, to me, an extremely self-destructive tendency for Israel.  Their minister of defense says these kind of responses are necessary in order to keep up the understanding that Israel will not accept any kind of violence.  For years Israel has believed that by responding to any violence with swift much more powerful violence, they will manage to keep aggression from surrounding nations down.  

But in the end all they build is resentment.  I realize that Israel has dealt with an immense amount of aggression towards it, much of which has been unprovoked.  For this reason they inevitably are quick to respond with such violence, but even though they have managed to keep the aggression from there neighbors at bay they can not keep this up forever.  Eventually the resentment for Israel’s violence, especially in the many cases that have affected innocent citizens, will grow out side the region.  Even in the UN we are beginning to see a growth of countries supporting Palestine for state hood.

Israel has to come to a new relationship with its neighbors.  As we are seeing with Iran, the surrounding nations are growing in military capabilities.  Iran has described vividly how many missiles it would be prepared to attack Israel with and in a few years it is possible that they may even have necular weapons.  The world around them is changing in lieu of the Arab Spring, and its time they find a way to get on the right side of this new wave.  My point is that with a few concessions of sincere commitment to the Palestinian people’s grievances, then they may manage to show the changing Arab people that they really want a peaceful and economically successful middle-east as well.

Here is the article that inspired this blog: http://www.npr.org/2011/12/08/143402473/gaza-official-dozens-wounded-in-israeli-airstrikes

Vladimir Vs. Clinton

Vladimir Putin, the Russian Prime Minister, has spoken out and criticized the United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, for supporting the the protesters in Russia that have spoken out against his continuous reign over the Russian government. Hillary Clinton believes that the Russian people “deserve a full investigation of electoral fraud and manipulation” over the parliamentary votes that were casted on Sunday.
There have been accusations made by some that there have been ballot box stuffing’s and fraudulent manipulations over the vote count in the parliamentary elections. With the outcomes of the Russian elections, and the fact that Vladimir Putin’s approval rate amongst the Russian people has decreased, there have been a significant amount of riots and protest across Russia.
It seems that the Russian government has taken these riots and protest very seriously and have put out 50,000 police and 2,000 paramilitary troops on the streets, which have all been backed by water cannons. Vladimir Putin has warned that more extreme measures will be taken if these riots and protests continue.
I believe that even though there have been significant protest made against these recent elections, websites such as Facebook.com and Live Journal should not be take a credible sources to aid protestors in making city-wide protests.
http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=1782357

The Question of the UK in the EU

There are many pros in cons to the UK staying in the EU. The bad part about Great Britain staying in the EU is that the EU is in a state of economic crises and the UK is suffering economically as a result of all of the bailouts. But if the UK left the EU than it would have no say EU economic policy and the EU could basically do whatever it wanted in relation to Great Britain because the UK would have no say in the European Union. Also, because of the fact that about fifty percent UK trade occurs with other European Union countries, tariffs would probably rise and the result would be that domestic industries would suffer. On the other hand, if the UK left the EU, the British parliament would again have complete control of its country and its policies. In conclusion, unless Great Britain leaves the European Union than it will never truly be a sovereign nation with complete autonomy over its own affairs.

The Beginning of 'Inner' and 'Outer' Europe

A summit began today in Brussels, as an attempt to find a solution to the crisis currently facing the Eurozone and the European Union at large. At the forefront of this agenda is the Franco-German proposal for Eurozone reform, which previously failed to gather the necessary support to be placed in effect for the EU bloc. The new proposal, which would apply solely to Eurozone countries, would force automatic penalties on Euro members that overspend, place pressure on Eurozone nations to pass amendments requiring balanced budgets, and create common corporate and financial tax laws.

The reason this proposal and who it applies to is so interesting is that this might well be the deal to save the Euro and the overall Union; after all, it is backed by both France and Germany, with France being long-time political leader and Germany emerging as the primary economic powerhouse of the EU - making it very difficult for those nations going under (hi, Greece) or rapidly approaching the cliff (Spain and Italy) to refuse the offer itself.

So are we seeing the beginning of a new era for European integration? Quite possibly. This proposal, if accepted, would further integrate the community of Eurozone countries within the context of the larger European Union. In this new era, we truly would be seeing Europe in, as Sarkozy recently said, 'two gears' - the Eurozone and tighter, supranational regulations being the first, and the more politically sovereign nations of the EU. These next few years will be interesting for the Euro and the Union - and may be remembered as the time leaders either proved or discredited the idea of European unity.

(As a final, interesting aside, France and Germany have supported their 'steamrolling' of smaller EU/Eurozone states by arguing that, as larger and more fiscally sound nations, they hold a greater deal of the risk. In addition, Sarkozy made mention at the preliminary meetings of the history between the two countries - both France and Germany, once holding centuries of bloody conflict between them, had not only worked together for the past fifty years, but were now actively fighting for the idea that brought them together: European unity.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16100258

The Vatican and Global Oversight

I do not think that this global oversight institution will work. First it was proposed by the Roman Catholic Church (The Vatican) which is in itself suspicious to me. The Vatican is already in all likelihood the most powerful institution the world has ever seen. And now it wants to head an institution that could carry more weight than any individual country in relation to economic affairs. Second the fact that some institution could have more power over a country’s economy than the country itself seems absurd. Lastly, the idea of this institution seems to only reinforce the idea of globalization which, in the years to come, could strip away a country’s autonomy.

The U.S. as the World Police

I believe that the U.S. has a duty to play the role of being the “world police” only to a certain extent. On the one hand, the U.S. has a duty to protect humanitarian interests abroad as it is the most powerful military power in the world. On the other hand, by interfering in these foreign nations it only increase the hate that these nations have for the West especially in countries like Nigeria where the West had taking advantage of the country for hundreds of years. I think that it is a necessary evil to do this. We must protect humanitarian rights, we cannot sit back and watch people die and so if the people in these foreign countries hate us for trying to protect them then so be it. We cannot just do nothing about the situation.

Egypt elections

With the elections in Egypt, a parliamentary government will soon take the place of the military government that took temporary control after Mumbarak agreed to step down. With 70% of the Egyptian population taking part in the elections, democracy is well on its way in Egypt. The fact that the elections were somewhat disorganized is no surprise considering the fact that it was their first actual election. Reports of violence in some polling stations should have also been expected considering the tensions that many Egyptians have felt as of recently in relation to their resistance of military rule. The Freedom and Justice Party (The Muslim Brotherhood) stands a good chance of gaining much control in the government. This is the first step in a brighter future for Egypt and its people.

Protests in Iran

I think Great Britain definitely had the right to cut financial ties with Iran. Britain did this because Iran was not meeting certain requirements related to termination of its nuclear program. In doing so Britain hoped that Iran would end its nuclear program. But, too much dismay, Iran did not respond as it was thought that they would. Instead, mobs of mainly young Iranian students attacked the British embassy. Iranian security forces were supposed to be in charge of the protection of the embassy and they supposedly tried to but the thousand man mob was too much for them to handle and they stormed the embassy. The Prime Minister of Great Britain, David Cameron, denounced the attack and described it as "outrageous and indefensible" and he demanded the Iranian security forces immediately ensure the protection of its personnel. The week before the attack occurred, the U.N. reported that Iran’s nuclear program could be militarily motivated therefore Britain had a definite right to cease economic ties with Iranian banks as a threat to stop Iran from pursuing its nuclear program.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/29/world/meast/iran-demonstrations/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Crescent Moon, Waning West

The Middle East has been in a state of revolution since January 2011. It all began with one fed up fruit vendor, Mohammed Bouazizi. He had his scale confiscated by a government official and when they would not give it back he did the unthinkable. He filled a canister with gas and in front of a government building in a small town in Tunisia, in the middle of traffic; he poured the canister over himself and lit a match. He barely survived. Videos of the incident would not have been shown on Tunisian television, and if it wasn’t for the fact that 20% of Tunisians had Facebook a revolution might have not occurred but they did. Videos of the man lighting himself on fire went up all over Facebook and when the man died word went out on the Internet and the public responded. Thousands poured into the capital and the dictator, Ben Ali, in fear for his life fled the country. Tunisia was free. But this was only the start. Egypt would soon follow in the steps of Tunisia and soon President Mumbarak resigned. Word was now spreading across the middle east of the revolutions. A Middle East country had never had a leader ousted by its own people and now it was starting. Libya would soon follow in the surge of uprisings and with the help of NATO, over the course of many months, Libyan rebels soon started to win the fight. When Muammar Gaddafi was finally captured and beaten to death it seemed as if the Libyan people had won there revolution. Throughout the Middle East, demonstrations have been taking place, from Yemen to Iran and Saudi Arabia. Additionally Saudi Arabia’s ancient crown prince Sultan has died. His death came at a time when many Saudi Arabians were seeking and demanding that their country modernize faster. What does all of this mean for the west? The U.S. has had relationships with many Middle East leaders and dictators. The U.S. has benefited from these alliances because it would deal with just the leaders alone, not some massive government body. The dictators or leaders had total control. But that could all change very soon. Elections have already been held in Egypt, which has been temporarily controlled by the military following Mubarak’s resignation. Elections will also soon be held in Tunisia and Libya as well. It seems as if these countries, among others, are heading to a democratic rule. One major fear is that fundamentalist Islamic groups might take control of these governments and once they are in control they might not want to leave. These new democratic governments might also not want any part of westernization especially if they are Islamic. Though western influence might waning but Middle Easterners will always have western influence in the fact that its students and businessmen will always flock to the United States for opportunity and knowledge.

http://www.economist.com/node/21534782
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-20033404.html?pageNum=2&tag=contentMain;contentBody

Futile and Stupid Gestures

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20111208-716501.html

For those who have been following it, the sovereign debt crisis in Europe has been quite the comedy. Allow me to explain: nearly every important government decision by European officials in the last couple of months remind me of a quote from Animal House “I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part!”

After the dean tells the Delta House fraternity that he’s expelling them all, “Otter” delivers that statement to inspire his brethren. “Blutto” (played by John Belushi) responds “…and we’re just the guys to do it.” They then devise a plan that brings mayhem to the entire town.

This is exactly what we keep getting from leaders in Europe. Futile and stupid gestures in response to events related to the debt crisis. The cycle is very simple. First, something really awful happens, like Greece defaulting, or a Bank needing a bailout. Then the markets panic. Standard and Poor’s will downgrade a country or two.

Then the politicians (who have somehow avoided getting thrown out of office) come out of the wood-work with their futile and stupid gestures. It doesn’t matter how it takes form. They start by making promises that they’re going to make everything all better. They’ll take talk about ‘debt plans’ and ‘bazookas’ and ‘firewalls’ and ‘debt brakes’ and all sorts of political mumbo-jumbo, ultimately buying themselves a little more time. Somehow, it works, and they buy themselves some time.

Soon some grand summit or meeting will be planned in the near future (this week it’s in Brussels.) They’ll assure us, ‘just wait till the summit, then the leaders will figure everything out’. Of course nothing ever gets solved.

One thing that has changed, though, is how much time they expect us to wait for the debt solution Christmas. It started as a week, maybe a month. Now, they expect us to wait several months until Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarcozy (Bluto and Otter in my analogy) can come up with the comprehensive plan that will rescue us.

This is of course very convenient for leaders like Sarcozy have elections coming up in the next couple of months. So whatever is decided in this next plan, we’re gonna have to wait until at least the summer. If it doesn’t work (and it never does), the cycle repeats and they dream up another plan.

The only problem is, markets aren’t going to wait. The futile and stupid gestures will end. Governments in Europe are either going to default on their debt, or they’re not. If they do, the longer the politicians bullshit us, the more painful it’s going to be for everyone.

Putin out of touch with the people?

     December 8, 2011 Vladimir Putin was carousing around the art galleries while protesters were screaming "Russia without Putin!" Apparently he wanted to send a message that  it's business as usual for Russia's paramount leader. He can ride out protests in Moscow and St Petersburg and has nothing to fear from a planned day of protests nationwide on Saturday. But the big question here is whether or not Putin has lost touch with the Russian people? Could it be a fatal political error? 

    But when the name Vladimir Putin arises in the political world many perceive him to be the never ending ruler of Russia. That no matter what happens he will maintain his power. But he needs to come to terms with the Conventional wisdom that he can ride out these protests and return to the presidency in an election in March, but his authority will keep falling if he fails to respond to the growing signs of discontent. Recent protests throughout Russia have delegitimized his power. A source even went as far as saying "We are witnessing the decline of Putin's epoch." If so what would be Russia's next political move?

     The opposing side believes Putin's strengths are his political experience after 12 years in power, his tight grip on traditional media, and the state apparatus he has at his disposal, including the armed forces, police and the ability to open the state's purse to appease some of the protesters. The head of the Levada Centre polling organization believes that "it won't be long before the protests fade. Anger over the election may keep them going for a while but there's no idea of what to do next. The leaders are competing with each other." The protests have served notice that opposition is growing and discontent is mounting over corruption, a tightly controlled political system dominated by one man and the huge gulf between rich and poor. These are the areas where protesters want change. But the youth in Russia are a strong supporter of Putin and they see him as a symbol of success, a macho and natural leader.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/08/us-russia-protests-putin-idUSTRE7B71HY20111208

            

Last week, Britain has decided to cut all financial relations with Iran over some concerns pertaining to Iran’s nuclear program. Because of this, all British credit and financial institutions were told to end their business ties and transactions with all Iranian banks, their branches and subsidiaries by Monday the 28th. The International Atomic Energy Agency or the IAEA reported concerns about the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program which led Britain to cut all financial ties with Iran. Iran resisted allegations from the IAEA and declared that their nuclear program was peaceful and alleged that the U.N. watchdog’s report was so-called “unbalanced” and “politically motivated.”

The disruption of the financial tie between Britain and Iran outraged some college students who gathered near the British embassy and led a protest which was peaceful at first but became outrageous as people replaced the British flag with an Iranian flag. Some people also stoned the windows of the embassy as others reached the Gholhak Garden, which was the diplomatic compound of the British embassy. In other words, the Gholhak Garden is basically the area in northern Tehran where British diplomats and their families, and Iranian families who work for the British embassy live.

Britain condemned Iran for allowing these Iranian students or rioters to be able to storm the British embassy. David Cameron, Prime Minister of Britain said that Iranian security forces are responsible for guarding the British embassy under international law and that the failure of the Iranian government to be able to defend the staff and the property was a disgrace. He also demanded that Iran must immediately insure the safety of all British personnel and also warning the Iranian government that they must be aware that there will be serious consequences for failing to protect the staff of the embassy.

Do you think that Britain was right to cut all financial ties with Iran even though Iran clearly defied the fact that their nuclear program was not harmful in any way?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/29/world/meast/iran-demonstrations/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Egypt Starts to Create Its New Future

Egyptian man is casting his ballot in the 2011 parliamentary elections.

           Today marks a great day for the Egyptian people as they have just finished their first parliamentary elections since the fall of President Hosni Mubarak. There were concerns that there were going major protests from people who believe that the elections were a fraud. These concerns became more realistic with the riots against the army rule, which resulted in forty-two people being killed. 

However, those protest were much smaller than expected. Instead, there was a much higher turnout for the elections than expected as seventy percent of the population decided to cast their vote. Because of the high turnout, the polls had to be extended for two hours in order for everyone to cast his vote. One of the other concerns was that the vote might be compromised due to vote buying but this election seems to have been fair. Dr. Magdy Abdel Hamid, head of the Egyptian Association for Community Development, says in an interview with Aljazeera, “For the first time, and in these elections, we have not seen a general will from the government to forge and rig the election…".

That is not to say that there were no setbacks. The elections were somewhat unorganized causing a delay at some of the polling stations because there was no ballot paper for the people or judges to preside over the elections. There were also sporadic reports of violence at the polling stations. Overall, this election process has been a success and military rulers are taking credit for it.

           Now that the elections are over, the focus will turn to military rule as they have not formally stepped down for the eventual parliamentary government that will more than likely be led in part by the Muslim Brotherhood. Once a banned party in Egypt, they have formed a new political arm called the Freedom and Justice Party, whose member where outside some strategic places telling people where they could vote, despite rules banning them from doing so. This is one step that Egypt is taking toward a brighter future. 

“Warning issued for Americans in Nigeria”

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/06/world/africa/nigeria-violence/index.html?hpt=wo_c2

The CNN article covering the backlash the US Mission in Nigeria is facing from the nation shocks me because it reflects the hate people have for the West on one hand. On the other hand, I can understand that the hubris Western nations, particularly the US, exude when dealing with the foreign affairs of non-Western nations. I believe it is an example of the US playing the part of world police. Whether that should be a title we embrace or not is up for debate.
Ethically, I believe we have a responsibility to care for nations that need assistance from national disasters and genocide. But, many times reasons for Western aid fall into a grey area when dealing with dictators and how to solve the problem of failing economies and politics of a third world nation such as Nigeria.
In this particular situation with the Nigerian government as it develops as a, what appears to be, radical Islamic militant groups, the grey area on US involvement is getting darker and darker. I can conceive the reasons for the Nigerians hostile response to the West—their history with us begins with being ruthlessly seized from their homeland, sold into the slave trade, and the inhumanity of that entire era. But the leading political party of Nigeria is literally named “Western education is sinful.” It’s clear they downright hate the West and thus makes the task of occupying Nigeria a dangerous and in some ways fruitless effort. I think of the phrase, you can help someone who doesn’t want to be helped.
How will involvement of the West help end the violence brought on by the Boko Haram groups if its presence is one of the sparks that set the powder keg off in the first place? Other than offering sanctuary to current government leaders and those who do no participate in the Islamic fundamentalist movement, what role does or should the West play in solving this crisis in Nigeria? The job of “world police” should not be the responsibility of any one place or entity—the days of divide and conquer helped initiate resentment toward the West in the first place. Perhaps a better approach would include stepping back from Nigeria and focusing on places and ways to offer sanctuary to those who require it and keeping the Islamic movements from too much contact with the US, for the increasing contact and control we take only increases the hate in their hearts.

Two-speed Europe, or two Europes?

Two-speed Europe, or two Europes?

Nov 8th 2011

NICOLAS Sarkozy is causing a big stir after calling on November 8th for a two-speed Europe: a “federal” core of the 17 members of the euro zone, with a looser “confederal” outer band of the ten non-euro members. He made the comments during a debate with students at the University of Strasbourg. The key passage is below (video here, starting near the 63-minute mark)

See the full article
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2011/11/future-eu

Italy's Technocratic Government

As the economic crisis continues to affect most of the European Union, the Italian government has come under new leadership after the resign of Silvio Berlusconi on November 12, 2011. An unelected new government, whose main goal is to prevent Italy from falling due to the debt crisis, was announced on Wednesday, November 16, headed by “Super” Mario Monti, an Italian economist who served as a European Commissioner from 1995 to 2004.

Described as a “good mix of specialties” by economist Annalisa Piazza, Premier Monti’s new government would be that of a technocracy, a form of government where technical experts are in charge of policy-making. He announced those who will serve in his cabinet on Wednesday, November 16. None of Monti’s appointees were elected by the Italian people but most come from the academic world. His decision to appoint non-politicians to the cabinet was made because "the absence of political personalities in the government will help rather than hinder a solid base of support for the government in parliament and in the political parties because it will remove one ground for disagreement."

Premier Monti’s selected each cabinet member of his new government is based on their expertise in each respected field. Elsa Fornero, an expert on welfare and pensions and professor of microeconomics, was appointed to Minister of Labour. Criminal Law professor Paola Severino will head the Ministry of Justice. Enzo Moavero Malinesi, an antitrust law specialist, will head the Ministry of European Affairs. Anna Maria Cancellieri, who has worked in the Ministry of the Interior since 1972, has been appointed to head the Ministry. Political Science Professor Lorenzo Ornaghi now leads the Ministry of Arts and Culture. The Minister of Development, Infrastructure, and Transport, Corrado Passera, left his position as CEO of Intesa Sanpaolo, Italy’s largest retail bank. Premier Monti appointed himself as Minister of Economy because he wants to accept the responsibility getting Italy’s economy back on track.

The decisions to have a prime minister with little legislative experience and a cabinet complete with non elected technocrats could prove to back fire on Italy if Monti’s cabinet doesn’t fix the economic problems. Monti intents for his government to last until the 2013 Elections but as of now, the new government has not yet been officially approved by Parliament and a vote of confidence is scheduled to take place on Thursday, November 17th, in the Senate and by the lower house the following day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/world/europe/monti-forms-new-italian-government.html?ref=mariomonti

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15751179

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/16/mario-monti-technocratic-cabinet-italy

Euro crisis 'opportunity for UK' to reclaim powers

While many British conservatives favor a UK withdrawal from the European Union, the conservative Prime Minister David Cameron has stated that he does not believe that it would be in the country’s best interests to leave the organization. Although Cameron has sided with the liberals on this issue, his reasoning is consistent with common conservative principals. Cameron views the current crisis in the Eurozone as an opportunity for EU members to change their perception of the role of the EU. Rather than seeing the EU as a bloc of nations with the aim of enforcing collective action through restrictive policies, Cameron suggests that Europeans see the EU as a “network.” This would involve loosening restrictions, granting more sovereignty to individual countries, and adopting policies that would free up markets within and beyond the EU.

Although a departure from the EU would grant the British parliament complete control over its own policies, it could also place new, and arguably worse, limitations on the country. Roughly fifty percent of the UK’s trade occurs with fellow EU members. Should the UK leave the EU, a likely raise in tariffs could cripple domestic industries. The move would also arguably put the UK at the mercy of the EU, because it would prevent it from having any say in EU economic policy debates. Rather than having the ability to argue for its own interests in the EU, the UK would have no choice but to accept the EU’s decisions, favorable or not.

I think the UK already possesses a favorable position in the EU compared to other member countries simply because it has it’s own currency. Should the Euro collapse, the UK would suffer a decrease its currency value, but nobody would argue that they would still be better of than Germany or France.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15730084

Hallelujah

Hallelujah

Nov 11th 2011

NOT since Silvio Berlusconi's erstwhile political sponsor, Bettino
Craxi, fled to Tunisia to avoid being jailed for corruption, has an Italian
prime minister left office in such humiliated fashion.Last night,
after finally resigning, Mr Berlusconi slipped out of a side door of the
president's palace to dodge a raucous mob. The media and property
magnate ended his fourth government, and very probably his career in
politics, to cries of “buffoon”, “Mafioso” and “face trial”.The
crowd, over a thousand strong, that gathered outside the old residence of the
popes on the Quirinal hill was largely good-humoured. Every so often, as it
waited for Mr Berlusconi's arrival, a choir would burst into a rendition
of the Hallelujah chorus from Handel's "Messiah". But
when his limousine eventually turned up, Mr Berlusconi was left in no doubt
about the anger and loathing that many Italians feel towards him. And when
the news that he had finally stepped down filtered out of his meeting with
President Giorgio Napolitano, there was an explosive roar of delight.Mr
Berlusconi should not be surprised. According to a poll conducted on November
4th and 5th for Sky Italia television, 71% of Italians favoured his early
resignation. His personal approval rating in a poll at the end of last month
for the daily La Repubblica was just 22%. He is seen by many as the man who
partied and exposed Italy to international ridicule while the country slipped
towards the abyss.This morning Mario Monti, the former European commissioner
who many expect to succeed Mr Berlusconi, emerged from his hotel to find a
group of reporters waiting for him. “Have you seen what a splendid day it
is?” he asked them.

See the full article
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2011/11/end-berlusconi

The Nuclear Taboo

“U.N. Agency Says Iran Data Points to A-Bomb Work”

Since the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a crisis emerged due to the mass casualties, amount human suffrage in the aftermath and the irreparable destruction caused. These two bombing struck fear in the global community and lead to what many call the “nuclear taboo.” The two atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima destroyed most infrastructure within half a mile, which seems minor compared to the hydrogen bombs the US possesses today which have a blast radius of eighteen miles. It is understandable why the global community would be concerned about which states have nuclear weapons or which states are making progress towards possessing them. According to the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1970 only five countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons, those five countries are: United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom and France. These are not the only countries is the international community that have nuclear weapons and it is speculated that North Korea may even have a nuclear bomb. Scholars have long been reporting their concern on the purpose behind Iran’s nuclear program and so it may not come to a surprise to them that the NY Times would report the  “United Nations weapons inspectors have amassed a trove of new evidence that they say makes a ‘credible’ case that ‘Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device,’ and that the project may still be under way.” The question remains what, if any, role should the United States or the international community have in disarming Iran? To what extent does the US have a obligation or duty to police the international community? And has the United States learned a lesson from Iraq that will affect their foreign policy towards states that may have nuclear weapons?  

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/world/un-details-case-that-iran-is-at-work-on-nuclear-device.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=iran&st=cse

China takes a Foothold in Africa

Angola was originally a colony of Portugal until it achieved independence in 1975. In the years that followed Angola would be entrenched in a terrible civil war that ravaged the land and destroyed the infrastructure of the country. This war also served as an extension of the cold war as the Soviet Union and the United States allied themselves with the competing factions in Angola. The Soviet Union supported the People's Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) and the United States supported the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA). The result of this twenty-seven year civil war which ended in 2002 was a massive humanitarian and economic crisis which engulfed the entire country. Before the war began, Angola was a very rich agricultural country with a strong tradition of family-based farming; Angola was self-sufficient in all crops except for wheat. That would all change as the civil war ravaged the country. After the war, the continued presence of millions of landmines impeded agricultural settlement in the countryside and lead to urbanized impoverishment throughout the country. But Angola did still have massive oil and diamond reserves throughout the country just waiting to be exploited by different countries. And just at this point, as the civil war ended, China would fill the void.
At this time, China was just launching a new initiative known as its “Going Out” strategy which aimed at securing new investment markets along with resources. Angola was the perfect target. During the past seven years, China has given over ten billion dollars in credit to Angola in exchange for oil. Trade between the two countries had reached over twenty-five billion by 2009 and Angola is China’s leading source of foreign oil imports. And not only is it just oil, China is now the second main consumer of diamonds in the world (the U.S. of course being #1) and most of those diamonds come presumably from Angola.
China has also imported thousands of workers from China to work on building projects for the country. Apparently, it is hard to walk through the streets of Luanda (the capital of Angola) without seeing a Chinese construction site. Chinese companies are involved in all levels of building and repairing the infrastructure of Angola. Everything from streets, railroads, hospitals, schools, residential buildings and airports are being built by Chinese workers who make about three times more working in Angola compared to China. This has led to much discrimination by the Angolan people who feel that the Chinese workers are taking the only jobs available in Angola away from them and into the hands of the Chinese. Additionally, many Chinese building projects have been proved half hazard and inadequate to the needs of the people who are not even considered when they are being built. Residential housing projects are being built on the basis of Chinese models with no consideration for what the people of Angola want. The first public hospital in Angola that was built by the Chinese began to literally fall apart directly after its opening (repairs have still not been made) and there are reports that Chinese built roads have been literally swept away by heavy rainfall all over the country.
For many Angolans, the involvement of China in Angola has led to an optimistic view of their country’s future on the world stage but to many other Angolans it is seen as an occupation bent on money that takes jobs away from natives and produces shady constructs.
http://theglobalrealm.com/2011/02/03/questions-about-china%E2%80%99s-win-win-relationship-with-angola/
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/new-imperialism-china-angola
http://oilprice.com/Geo-Politics/Africa/Chinas-Waning-Influence-in-Angola.html
http://www.macauhub.com.mo/en/2011/07/11/angola-reaps-%E2%80%9Cimmense-rewards%E2%80%9D-from-cooperation-with-china/

Military Dictatorship or Clerical Regime?

For as long as I have been alive, the Unites States and Iran have been at odds with each other. Now, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seems to think that Iran is turning from a clerical regime to a military dictatorship. Many people already seem to be at the conclusion that Iran is already a military dictatorship. Most people know that Iran has a head religious figure called the Ayatollah, but most people do not realize that Iran also has a president.

I believe that most countries that have clerical regimes will eventually become a military dictatorship. The religious figure will eventually become enamored with the power, and the religious power may try to depose of the president or prime minister. The religious figure will almost definitely try to make himself more powerful than the president or prime minister. It seems as if Ayatollah Khamenei is already doing this. He is already more powerful than the president since he can appoint people to influential posts in the military and government. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force (IRGC-QF) seems to be the tool that the Ayatollah is using to control the people of Iran which makes Iran seem to be even more of a military dictatorship.

What makes the situation in Iran even harder to deal with is the fact that we really do not know who the decision maker is now. What we do know is that the Ayatollah is more powerful than the president, and that many Iranian clergy feel as if he is lacking in some religious education. In other words, some Iranian clergy feels like he is not up to the job. He was also just a midlevel cleric when he became the Ayatollah which to me makes him a prime candidate to turn his country into a military dictatorship. He probably feels like the only way to maintain power over his population is to back the army and make them more powerful. Roman history has shown us that armies can put leaders in power and take them out of power just as easily.

Since the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force (IRGC-QF) is so powerful in Iran, I would say that they are trending to more of a military dictatorship than a clerical regime. Although it is still important for the Ayatollah to have some religious support behind him, he does not need as much religious backing with the military behind him. I think that only the future will really be able to show what will happen in Iran.

Article: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/07/irans-growing-military-dictatorship/?hpt=wo_bn1

Fighting freedom with fire

Fighting freedom with fire

Nov 1st 2011

WHEN the French satirical weekly, Charlie Hebdo, reprinted controversial
Danish cartoons of the Prophet, Muhammad, five years ago, French political
leaders were ambivalent. Jacques Chirac, then the president, called it a
“manifest provocation”. “Anything that can wound the convictions of
others should be avoided,” he declared. Today’s political reactions to a
fresh controversy surrounding Charlie Hebdo and Islam have been far more
robust.

See the full article
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2011/11/france-and-islam

The Arab world

The Arab world
Crescent moon, waning West
The decline of Western power in the Arab world is no bad thing
Oct 27th 2011

See the full article
http://www.economist.com/node/21534782

Vatican proposes a Global oversight Institution

On Monday October 24, 2011, the Roman Catholic Church (Vatican) proposed the need for a global financial oversight system, due to the failure of government oversight. The Vatican claims that the International Monetary Fund and other international economic oversight institutions have failed in response to the issue and there is a need for a more active international institution that can better address economic problems; this institution should have the ability to surpass the government’s authority in regard to the economy. According to the Vatican, the failure of states to stabilize their economy is due to the interconnectedness of all state economies (globalization); globalization is also the reason they provide for the success of a more powerful international institution for economic oversight.

The Vatican presents a liberal concept of the International system; they believe that cooperation will occur and this International institution can hold more power than a sovereign state. Yet, what the Vatican overestimates is the willingness of a sovereign state to give away authority over their economy. One can say that International Monetary Fund has not succeeded in the international economic oversight because it is not sovereign and therefore has no method of enforcement. The Vatican’s request inferred that the new institution could potentially change the balance of power and destabilize powerful nations. The change in balance of power would only occur if this new institution held more power than sovereign nations, which would mean the cooperation of sovereign states.

My view towards the international system is of a realist; I believe that sovereign nations hold the most power and they’re main objective is to have the most power, economically, technologically, militaristically, etc. There is no sovereign state that would be willing to give up some of its power without a guaranteed benefit. The idea that one international system has the authority of the world’s economy, scares the powerful nations; like the Vatican pointed out, they could potentially lose the large amount of power they have obtained. Having power ensures the survival of the state, which is a government’s main priority. Everything a nation does is to protect itself first. Therefore, the Vatican’s proposal would eventually end up failing in its purpose. Whatever the new institution were to propose, they would have no form of enforcing these regulations on every sovereign state and each government would still continue to have more power than the institution.

Word Count:395

Historic Election in Tunisia

Elections were held in Tunisia this past Sunday, the first free and fair elections in the African nation’s history. Previous elections in Tunisia were pre-determined, and 90% of votes cast were usually given to the ruling party, the Constitutional Democratic Rally. The former authoritarian leader, President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, was ousted at the beginning of this year. The Tunisian uprising marked the beginning of the ‘Arab Spring’; protests followed in the neighboring countries of Egypt and Libya and several Middle Eastern states. An interim government has been in place since March, led by Beji Caid Essebsi. This interim government assumed the responsibility of arranging elections for a Constituent Assembly that will hold power for a year. The Constituent Assembly will consist of 217 members that will draft a new constitution and form a temporary government to rule until a legitimate constitution is established. The 4.4 million Tunisian registered voters had the choice of voting for 80 different political parties, comprised of 11,000 candidates as well as several thousand independent candidates.

Clearly democracy is something that the Tunisian people have awaited for a long time. Seventy percent of eligible voters voted in the election this weekend. Voters formed long lines as early as dawn, and many lines remained even after the polls closed at 7 PM. Though the results of this historic election have not been officially announced, the moderate Islamic party al-Nahda has claimed victory, stating that it won 40% of the votes. Of the 87 constituent assembly seats definitely decided, al-Nahda has won 37. The al-Nahda party has already discussed forming a coalition government with the two leftist parties in second place, Ettakol and the Congress Party for the Republic.

The success of al-Nahda will undoubtedly have major implications for the future of Tunisia. Though the previous constitution describes Tunisia as a Muslim nation, the government was largely secular and women enjoyed a number of rights not permitted to their counterparts in more religious nations. Thus, this election was also distinctive in that it gave the population the choice of a continuation of secular rule or a new emphasis on the country’s Islamic roots. Critics of al-Nahda fear that the party gave people inaccurate information concerning their stance and will rule more conservatively than promised. The al-Nahda party asserts that it would like to establish a moderate Islamic government that will uphold the democratic rights of the people and lead Tunisia to a more stable future (especially in the economic sector).

Many have expressed their concern over women’s place in the new Tunisia. Women not only hold the right to vote but also posses equal divorce and wage rights and can legally obtain abortions. Women played an active role in the uprising against the dictatorship. Gender parity on electoral lists was obligatory in this election, guaranteeing that at least half of every party’s candidates are female. However, most major parties have male leaders, and there are not gender parity requirements for the seats in the Constituent Assembly. Both factors make it likely that gender equality will not be realized in the actual government. Many now worry that women will lose their rights in a hidden social conservative agenda of al-Nahda. The world will certainly have to wait to see if women continue to gain political importance or conversely lose their rights under this new administration.

Without having the official election results, it is impossible to ascertain how the near future of Tunisia will shape up. Given the diversity of the nation, a fusion of secular and Islamic values in a sustainable democratic government may be the best option. A “democratic” revolution is only as successful as the government that comes in its wake. One Tunisian voter was quoted by Al Jazeera as saying, “I am voting for the future of my daughter and I'm absolutely thrilled by it.” The future of all Tunisians, men and women, hangs in the balance.

An interesting comparison: in the next year, the American political scene will tear itself to pieces over the 2012 presidential election. In this year, the people of Tunisia will face the results of their first truly democratic election. As the world anxiously awaits the consequences of Tunisia’s election, we should pay homage to the great freedom that Tunisians have won for themselves.

Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/2011tunisiaelection/

Photo: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/2011/10/20111089246280661.html

Clashes as UK police evict travellers

Clashes as UK police evict travellers

Police use tasers and make several arrests in operation to evict residents from country's largest traveller site.

Read more: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/10/2011101916130486213.html

Iran: What do we do?

Over the past week, a plot was uncovered that was meant to attack and kill the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States. Although threats are very common to most foreign diplomats, this threat is very unique. It is so unique because the United States is claiming that the assassin has been hired from Iran and used the guise of a member of a drug cartel. If proven, the trouble is two-fold; the fact that Iran is supporting terrorist organizations and terror outside its own territory and there are no more reprimands that the US can put on Iran. Since the exile of the Shah in 1979 and the takeover of the embassy America does not involve itself with Iran. So how do the Americans and the Saudi Arabians officials respond to clear violations of international diplomacy and ethics? Kick Iran out of the UN. Check. Place sanctions. Done. Cut all economic ties to Iran. Yup. Now what?

Some lawmakers suggest continuing with economic sanctions and adding more sanctions. But even with sanctions, Iran is clearly violating everything placed by the international community and no longer cares. A growing nuclear program, no concern for the violation of human rights and the ideals of fair elections Iran is becoming a problem that the international system will need to address.

With the accusations of Iran’s involvement in the attempt of killing the ambassador, should the US consider placing restrictions on companies and countries that interact with Iran? Energy companies in Russia, China and India would feel the pressure but these pressures could create a restrain in other relations that the US has with these countries. As growing countries, China, India and Russia will be important to help the American economy come back to its own feet. The options are limited as time passes by and if things get worse with Iran, will the US use military force to stop Iran (and be able to justify it)?

Two individuals have been charged and indicted in a federal court in New York for attacking the ambassador’s convoy. If the US is successful at proving Iran’s involvement what does this mean for the international system, the value of security and it could potentially address the grey areas that countries use when diplomacy fails.

The New York Times, CNN, and BBC are covering the US response and as well as the South Korean response as President Lee Myung- Bak visits the US and North Korea becomes a growing concern.

Here's a video from the White House when Presidents Obama and Lee address Iran today at the joint press conference.

Serbia clears EU membership hurdle

Serbia clears EU membership hurdle

( http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/10/20111012134434935924.html )

Bachman Mispoken

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/bachmanns-claim-that-china-blinded-us-satellites/2011/10/03/gIQAHvm7IL_blog.html

The Washington Post recently came out with an article stating that Congresswomen Michele Bachman made the claim that China ‘blinded’ U.S. satellites. Normally these kind of statements would be disregarded in everyday news. Bachman, however, is currently running for the republican nomination for the 2012 presidential election, and anything she says should be looked at closley. In order to evaluate Bachman's statements, two things need to be considered. Firstly, is there any truth behind Bachman's? The article suggest that Bachman misspoke when stating that U.S satellites were ‘blinded’. In reality, the article seems to hint that the satellites might have been slightly damaged by Chinese tracking systems during routine tracking. Specific instances of foul play by the chinese did not seem apparent. Moreover, one must consider what underlying issues Bachman was trying to address. It is hard to understand why Bachman would use China as an example to illustrate national security threats. Bachman's statements, however, are surely making reaching accusations that appear to be misleading. While the idea of the Chinese military tracking U.S. satellites might seem unsettling, one can be assured that the U.S. military uses the same tactics to insure national security.

In all, the misleading nature of Bachman’s statements is the most concerning part of this article. Bachman based her statements on unclear incidents that occurred in 2006. With little lack knowledge about the subject and the open ears of thousands of people Bachman made an unforced error. In making this error, Bachman showed no restraint nor sense of responsibility. In order to run for president, a candidate must understand that everything they say will be looked at closely. By being careless with her statements, Bachman proved that she is not ready to run for president. The general public, however, might oversee this kind of miscue. Politicians misspeak all the time and are able to get away with it. Will this be the case for Bachman?

Germany and the Financial Crisis

The New York Times released an article detailing the legislative proceedings in Germany concerning the failing economy in the European Union. This should give Americans some relief to know the rest of the first world nations face the same predicament. With Greece essentially bankrupt, Italy not fairing much better with waste over flowing the streets of Venice because of failing funds and civil programs, and many other affluent European nations facing a stark economic crisis, it becomes a pressing issue to rectify the instability before the weakness of some nations begins to hinder the prosperity of the other members of the EU. However, as a multi-nation organization, the resilient nations have a responsibility to those that are less stable to lend a hand through trying times. Thus, Germany easily passed a bill that increased the amount of euros for the bailout fund for struggling European nations from 123 billion euros to 211 billion euros. It passed easily with a vote count of 523 in favor and 85 against. While an easy victory it was extremely important for Chancellor Merkel to have a strong showing from her fellow party members. Many voiced concern as some of Merkel’s party members in parliament did not support the bill. It is completely different temperance and mentality in the subtleties of politics in Germany vs. the United States. In the United States, there are primaries voted on by the public to select party candidates, so having the allegiance and support of one’s party members is not relatively important. In Germany however, candidates are named by the party themselves, so having a turbulent relationship with one’s fellow party members can be a travesty for one’s political career. Fortunately, Merkel still had enough party support to pass the bill without opposing party votes, indicating that she is still very much in control.